Talk:Next (2007 film)

Missing Spoiler tag

Shoudn't there be a spoiler tag?--Irongrip 15:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and inserted one. See if it lasts Im, just noticed that sections marked 'plot' you should just assume that there are spoilers in, thereby deleting the tags ve just inserted. --Udo 04:32, 10 Juli 2007 (UTC)

Changes to article

External link changed to Next Movie - Official Movie. (Sudha 03:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC))

Changed the plot summary: from the official site: Next Movie (Sudha 03:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC))

Copying the plot summary directly from another source is plagiarism. I've removed it. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 13:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Visual effects

• Thomas J. McLean (2007-04-27). "Next: Flex Time for VFX". VFXWorld. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Citation for possible use. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Some of the comparisons in the trivia section seem completely off base. I would have a hard time imagining that this movie is based on Dr. Strangelove, simply because both films feature nuclear bombs.151.198.44.119 22:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Or with Phil Dick's "The Golden Man", for that matter. Might as well be related to any movie/book with people who can predict the future. The synopsis from the movie bears NO resemblance at all to the story it's supposedly based on (Cris doesn't speak in the story, doesn't have any goal besides escaping with his life, the government agents want to kill him, he escapes and in doing so dooms humanity to extinction).201.235.188.220 00:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, but the movie credits mention explicitly that it was inspired by that movie. As for Dr. Strangelove, this movie was cerinly not 'inspired' by it, but it still is probably no coincidence they showed it in the backround. Laca 16:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

So what if the producers want to say it's based on Dick's novel? It's not uncommon for producers to want to cash in on a famous writer's name but anyone familiar with Dick's short story can see that it bears no resemblance whatsoever apart from having a precog in it (and even then his powers are very different) - even the term "loosely" is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.53.40 (talk) 13:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, i think the tag in the opening line about phil dick's story is inappropriately placed. it should be moved down to trivia or marked later on as an influence. this book and movie are not the same at all. this is 'lawnmower man' all over again... i mean seriously, remove it.

Plot

With the government having tormented him for years because of his ability, he has generally kept a low profile, utilizing his unique ability as a Las Vegas showroom magician...

Did I miss something, or it this incorrect? It seemed to me that at the beginning, Julianne Moore's boss was barely convinced of his existence.
—wwoods 18:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

During the conversation between Cage and Moore at the garage, Cage makes a statement to the effect that he has indeed been previously tormented by institutions of one form or another (although perhaps not the government itself). Remember the line about the marathon session of "guess the next card"? -- Slordak 14:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but there's no reason to assume it was the government...Laca 16:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, he said "people like you" when he was talking to Moore. OverlordQ 07:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Which could simply mean people who want to use the powers of precognitive people for their own gain.

Movie Genre

"Next is a 2007 comedy loosely based on the science fiction short story "The Golden Man" by Philip K. Dick. The film is directed by Lee Tamahori and stars Nicolas Cage, Julianne Moore, Jessica Biel and Thomas Kretschmann. The film was released April 27, 2007."

Can someone explain to me why Next is considered a comedy? Edgar 20:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism, Eddy, vandalism. --Soetermans 07:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

wikiquotes links to nowhere

as title. httassadar 20:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Controversy about sudden ending?

Does anyone know if there was/is any controversy about the film's plot resolution? It seems to me that it would, given how it does end. — metaprimer (talk) 01:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Why would there be any controversy, it is now back to a day before the bomb is due to go off, and Cris knows where the bomb will be detonated from, and the FBI believe his abilities, so the crisis will be resolved - even if he messes up and can't find a way to fix it first time, he can go back to the same day again and take a different route, or even back further to when he met Liz if necessary presumably (and possibly before) - the ending is the end of any tension in the movie - he wins, because due to the interaction with Liz he is no longer trapped with only two minutes to work with - he now can wind forward and back at least a couple of days, and with the aid of the FBI and NEST and whoever else, so what would be the point? Up until we learn he can rewind back that far, there is dramatic tension in that he could get trapped in some situation with no way out, but now the terrorists cannot win as there is now a near infinite amount of routes for Cris to explore (which presumably is the point of rubbing the viewers nose in the excessive copying of himself towards the end of the boat scene is meant to telegraph to the viewers, when combined with the reveal of the extended rewind capability he now has. --81.156.8.87 (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

DVD release

Does anyone know if there is going to be a DVD release of Next? If so, when? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.190.109.54 (talk) 00:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't think of a reason why Next wouldn't see a DVD release when just about every other movie does. — metaprimer (talk) 05:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

'Production'?

A big chunk of the Production section is indented for some reason. Is it a block quote from something? If so, it needs a cite.
—wwoods 03:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Original script

Ww. The original scripts is so much better. Thank you for publishing it here. I wish they would've made the film with that intent in mind, it would have been a much better, more successful film. Less boringly formatted to Hollywood's "kill the bad guy, save the girl" unimaginative format. The orginial scripts would buzz up so much conrtroversy and debate as to be THE movie of the year.--Procrastinating@^talk2me 11:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Clean Up

The final paragraph of the plot section is really sloppy:

"In the next scene, Cris and Liz are still sleeping in the hotel. It is before Liz can go outside to be confronted by Ferris. Cris is reflecting that "every time you look into the future, it changes... because you looked at it." Because the nuclear weapon the terrorists could hurt Liz, Cris has been able to see a day into the future. He calls Farris to make a deal. Then he says his goodbye to Liz, asks her to wait for him and goes outside to meet Farris."

This is just plain confusing. "Because the nuclear weapon the terrorists could hurt Liz, Cris has been able to see a day into the future." makes absolutely no sense at all.

It also doesn't mention anyone awakening, so it sounds like all of this happens while they are asleep. Also, they are not in a hotel, but a cabin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.238.108 (talk) 01:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Ferris Vs. Farris

The name is spelled each way several times throughout the article.

Trivia deleted

• In one scene in the movie, Cris Johnson switches a television on in order to mask his voice from detection by the FBI. A channel displayed on the television is playing a scene from Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. A later scene in the movie has Johnson strapped to a chair with his eyelids mechanically held open while he is forced to watch a television screen. This scene is reminiscent of a scene from Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange.[1]

• In the 'Clockwork Orange' scene, Callie Ferris offers Johnson a cigarette. The cigarette box bears a striking resemblance to the Victory Cigarettes box from the film adaptation of 1984.

• The last word seen in the film is that of name of the hotel, named to coincide with its ending: "Cliffhanger".

• The credits are briefly "foreseen", including a glimpse of the ending logos, before rolling from the top of the screen to the bottom. This mimics Johnson's ability to see into the future. Despite the reversed direction of flow, the credits follow the normal order, with well known names appearing before the rest of the crew. Some statements are printed in lines of text vertically reversed in order.[2]

Ikip (talk) 09:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

References

Raining fish in Denmark

See: Raining animals

Cage mentions that 50 years ago it rained fish in Denmark.

• BBC How can it rain fish?

Ikip (talk) 09:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

typo?

I thought he went to the dinner twice a day at 9.08 and not 8.09

The Golden Man?

For some reason I have no power to change the first mini-paragraph of the article. But, this movie is not even loosely based off from The Golen Man, and quite frankly there are no sources. That's not to say that the screenwriter didn't copy Mr. Dick's idea, but no, this is not based off of The Golden Man. Unless, someone can find evidence. Which, if you dig, you'll find evidence to support my claim. It's like saying Inception is based off from some book about dreams; it's prepostrous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JCStreetSoldier (talk • contribs) 16:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Err, doesn't it say "based on a short novel by Philip K Dick" during the starting credits of the film? --81.156.8.87 (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved, withdrawn No such user (talk) 14:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Next (2007 film) → Next (film) – There are currently no other films named Next. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 03:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Strong oppose disambiguation page lists three films with articles, and four films total. This was the former name of a film, and another film has a subtitle in addition to the main title. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per WP:DAB we dab by topic not article, and as 65.94 says disambiguation page lists three films with articles, and four films total. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support There are no other films simply called Next. The page Next does list films there, but none of them are actually called "Next". The Bollywood film makes no reference in the article it was produced under the title Next, the animated short doesn't have an article (so why list it?), with the director's article stating the title is infact Next: The Infinite Variety Show and the documentary is titled Next: A Primer on Urban Painting, and doesn't exactly look as if it's notable! The documentary should have a distinguish tag on it. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Lugnuts, the dab page was mislinking Next (1990 film) (which prior to Feb had been at Next (short film). The article was moved by User:Fortdj33 (Fortdj33 moved page Talk:Next (short film) to Talk:Next (1990 film): Proper disambiguation per WP:NCF) which seems to be correct? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Ahh, good spot. Right, ignore my comment above - no need to move this now per WP:NCF. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Never mind. I failed to notice Next (1990 film) when I proposed this. Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 02:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Next (2007 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20070623044747/http://ae.miami.com/entertainment/ui/miami/movie.html?id=862317&reviewId=22418 to http://ae.miami.com/entertainment/ui/miami/movie.html?id=862317&reviewId=22418

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)